HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2020, 4:21 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
I don't think they would be able to "cut travel time between Ottawa and Montreal by 20-25%" only with upgrades to the track they currently own. For an approximately 2 hour trip, that would mean shaving it by 24 to 30 minutes. Considering with HFR along the entire route, VIA hopes to save 30 minutes, on the trip, what upgrades are you proposing they do for the 124 km (of the 187 km route) that VIA owns to get 80-100% of HFR's gains?
Nowhere was it suggested that the ~$90 million was exclusively for track they own. It was suggested that this was the total spending required on the Ottawa-Montreal segment of HFR. If I find that source, I'll post. So they absolutely could have and should have spent this money and achieved HFR speeds on this segment. At least, they'd be talking to the other rail operators and figuring out what needs to be done. Waiting for HFR to do this is just a waste of time and shows a lack of commitment to continuous improvement. If there's smaller projects with decent returns, they should be jumping on them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2020, 5:24 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Nowhere was it suggested that the ~$90 million was exclusively for track they own. It was suggested that this was the total spending required on the Ottawa-Montreal segment of HFR. If I find that source, I'll post. So they absolutely could have and should have spent this money and achieved HFR speeds on this segment. At least, they'd be talking to the other rail operators and figuring out what needs to be done. Waiting for HFR to do this is just a waste of time and shows a lack of commitment to continuous improvement. If there's smaller projects with decent returns, they should be jumping on them.
Sorry. My bad. So you are suggesting that they do HFR in stages and do the Montreal-Ottawa stage even if they remaining parts don't get funded? I expect they would still need to wait for TC to approve standards for Class 6 track.

We likely wouldn't get the improved frequency part of HFR, as that is likely predicated on the synergies between the three routes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2020, 9:00 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
Sorry. My bad. So you are suggesting that they do HFR in stages and do the Montreal-Ottawa stage even if they remaining parts don't get funded?
Yes. It improves service for existing passengers. It certainly enables the operation of additional short haul services. And most of all it demonstrates that VIA is committed to improving while providing a concrete demonstration on how investment can improve service.

Conditioning all investment and improvements on HFR was and is a poor idea. Especially if there is relatively lower hanging fruit like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
I expect they would still need to wait for TC to approve standards for Class 6 track.
Not necessary. Build to anticipated standard. Certify and operate at highest available. And the certify to the higher standard when available. Stuff like this can and is done routinely in Engineering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
We likely wouldn't get the improved frequency part of HFR, as that is likely predicated on the synergies between the three routes.
We might not get 15 trains per day. But a project like this improves running time of through services and enables VIA to buy 1-2 dedicated DMU sets to launch a few dedicated frequencies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2020, 12:18 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
I don't think they would be able to "cut travel time between Ottawa and Montreal by 20-25%" only with upgrades to the track they currently own. For an approximately 2 hour trip, that would mean shaving it by 24 to 30 minutes. Considering with HFR along the entire route, VIA hopes to save 30 minutes, on the trip, what upgrades are you proposing they do for the 124 km (of the 187 km route) that VIA owns to get 80-100% of HFR's gains?

The biggest issues with the Ottawa-Montreal route are (in no particular order):
  1. waiting for freight trains when crossing CP's Winchester Sub
  2. conflicts with freight trains when using CN's track
  3. the slow approach into Montreal.
  4. waiting for oncoming VIA trains

The first three have to wait for HFR. The fourth could be fixed with longer sidings, but the position of those sidings will change with HFR.

The only other thing VIA could do is improve the track for faster speeds, but until TC approves a standard for Class 6 track (something VIA is working on for HFR), the best VIA can do is Class 5, and so that upgrade would need to be redone with HFR.

What am I missing?
Winchester grade separation could be done at any time.
Additional sidings (or sections of double track) could be done at any time
Upgrading track, fencing, level crossings, could be done at any time.

On the West side the Barrhaven grade separations, the Line 2 grade separation, doubling track through Ottawa, replacing the bridge over the Rideau River, and track upgrades in rural areas could also be done at any time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 2:43 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Nowhere was it suggested that the ~$90 million was exclusively for track they own. It was suggested that this was the total spending required on the Ottawa-Montreal segment of HFR. If I find that source, I'll post.
I was trying to find a reference to this and so far all I found was this post on Urban Toronto that said, "I believe it was noted before that getting this portion up to HFR standards would cost $90 million." referring to the Alexandria Sub (not the the entire Montreal-Ottawa leg). Now this is hardly conclusive and the poster may have been mistaken, or I could be interpreting it incorrectly. Either way further digging will be required.

More interestingly, this was in reply to this post by Urban Sky (who I believe is the same as our Urban_Sky, not to be confused with Urban Sky from Miami). Anyone who hasn't read this post, I highly recommend doing so!

The points I found most interesting were (but please read the original to get the full context):
Quote:
IIRC, the key idea of HFR was to create a project which was large enough to make a real change (i.e. to enable significant growth in ridership and revenues) while small enough to have a realistic chance of receiving the funding it needs. It therefore deliberately accepted the trade-offs which deviate from what some people here feel “would be right” (such as double-tracking, grade separation of all level crossings or electrication) and left them as “upgrades” which could be added at a later point. Similarly, in terms of providing a path towards HSR, the emphasis was to minimize waste (i.e. infrastructure work which can’t be upgraded to HSR) rather than future-proofing every single infrastructure work.
Quote:
the Alexandria Sub is already built to close-to-HFR standards and has historically allowed travel times (1:35h) close to those envisioned by HFR.
This to me indicates that the upgrades planned for the Alexandria Sub are minimal (thus explaining the low cost) but in isolation, those upgrades would also have minimal effect on the total Montreal-Ottawa travel time. My guess is its upgrades would be limited to moving the sidings to line up with the hourly departures of HFR. Different departure intervals would require sidings at different locations, thus upgrades done now would likely not be reusable by HFR.

The upgrades that will have the biggest effect would be from obtaining dedicated tracks east of the Alexandria Sub, and that would likely cost much more than the quoted price. Could it be done ahead of time? Yes, but it takes time to negotiate the appropriate deals with the rail line owners. (CN & CP). There is a big difference to the owners being interested in making a deal and actually signing a deal. It all comes down to what does that $90 million actually include and is it a real quote?

The other interesting quote from the post was related to the approach into Toronto:
Quote:
Therefore, the Stouffville line could show a cheaper alignment from Agincourt Yard into Union Station, requiring only little engineering works over what would be required for Metrolinx anyways, while accessing a better transit hub (Kennedy vs. Eglinton). Sure, with Metrolinx’ long-term plans, this corridor might get too crowded, but until then, this routing could reduce the price tag for HFR, while only having minimal negative effect on travel time (considering that the shared section between the intersection with CP’s Belleville Sub and Scarborough Junction would only be 7 km long and so far has no other stations than Kennedy). And once traffic on the Stouffville Sub grows beyond what would make VIA’s presence tolerable, the only engineering work no longer be operationally required would be the ramp between Belleville and Stouffville Sub, but could still provide operational flexibility in the case that there is any disruption in the Don Valley.
None of this is conclusive, but it is food for thought.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 4:57 PM
Gat-Train Gat-Train is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 508
Why is VIA not able to run trains through the Mont Royal tunnel anymore? Is this an engineering issue or a legal one? The federal government that runs VIA can't change its own rules to make their train service better??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 5:43 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gat-Train View Post
Why is VIA not able to run trains through the Mont Royal tunnel anymore? Is this an engineering issue or a legal one? The federal government that runs VIA can't change its own rules to make their train service better??
AFAIK, only electric trains are allowed in the tunnel because of ventilation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 6:02 PM
Gat-Train Gat-Train is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
AFAIK, only electric trains are allowed in the tunnel because of ventilation.
I thought the plan for HFR was to use bi-modal trains?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 6:05 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Well the tunnel is going to have an LRT in it now, is it not? Montreal seems quite content to make it so the tunnel is impossible to use for heavy rail and have no interest in going out of their way to accommodate VIA.

Which to be honest is not unreasonable. REM is a project that is actually being built and will transport far more people and be more beneficial to Montreal than VIA will, and HFR right now is just a proposal with no guarantee of being built, with only middling interest from the federal government.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 6:45 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gat-Train View Post
I thought the plan for HFR was to use bi-modal trains?
Sorry. I thought you were talking about today. Even for HFR, electrification is only an option, and might only be a future upgrade. Also, regarding REM, in addition to what milomilo said, there is the whole issue of getting approval to have heavy and light equipment share tracks, technically possible but not a given.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 7:15 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
Sorry. I thought you were talking about today. Even for HFR, electrification is only an option, and might only be a future upgrade. Also, regarding REM, in addition to what milomilo said, there is the whole issue of getting approval to have heavy and light equipment share tracks, technically possible but not a given.
One would assume a gigantic VIA train might not even fit under the 1500V DC electrification that dinky REM LRVs will use either. the VIA equipment would have to be dual voltage also - additional expense and complexity. None of this is insurmountable, but it would have to be planned from the start, and from all I have heard the implementers of REM have not given this any thought, and why should they?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 8:15 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
I think the biggest issue is that REM is planned with high enough peak frequencies that it would be difficult to schedule additional trips - especially ones that aren't going to be stopping at all the REM stops - without disrupting one or both services. In other words, I don't see how there's supposed to be enough capacity to accommodate mainline rail services.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 8:20 PM
jamincan jamincan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: KW
Posts: 1,438
Why does VIA need to use the Mont-Royal tunnel for HFR again?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 8:51 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamincan View Post
Why does VIA need to use the Mont-Royal tunnel for HFR again?
It really doesn't for the main Montreal to Toronto/Windsor section, but for the proposed HFR route between Montreal and QC which is on the north shore of the river there's no other route into Gare Centrale except going all the way around the west side of the mountain which takes an extra approx. 15 minutes (same reason why the AMT wanted to route the St. Jerome and Maschoche lines through the tunnel). The other option would be for the train to only stop outside of downtown such as trains going between QC and Windsor to only stop far outside downtown Montreal at say de la Concorde, Ahuntsic/Chabanel, or Parc and for people to take Metro or REM to/from downtown.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 9:20 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
I think the biggest issue is that REM is planned with high enough peak frequencies that it would be difficult to schedule additional trips - especially ones that aren't going to be stopping at all the REM stops - without disrupting one or both services. In other words, I don't see how there's supposed to be enough capacity to accommodate mainline rail services.
Yeah, that too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
It really doesn't for the main Montreal to Toronto/Windsor section, but for the proposed HFR route between Montreal and QC which is on the north shore of the river there's no other route into Gare Centrale except going all the way around the west side of the mountain which takes an extra approx. 15 minutes (same reason why the AMT wanted to route the St. Jerome and Maschoche lines through the tunnel). The other option would be for the train to only stop outside of downtown such as trains going between QC and Windsor to only stop far outside downtown Montreal at say de la Concorde, Ahuntsic/Chabanel, or Parc and for people to take Metro or REM to/from downtown.
What does VIA do today? I see it's a separate service, but I don't see a detailed map for how it leaves Montreal for Quebec. Why can't we just continue this, for now? It's perhaps not optimal, but if the using the tunnel is a non starter, then it would appear that trying to optimally serve Quebec City in the first phase of HFR is adding too much complication.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 9:28 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Most of the service is now the south river route I believe. So it comes into Gare Centrale across the Victoria bridge. But the point of HFR is to avoid the current routes with their busy freight traffic.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 10:57 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
Most of the service is now the south river route I believe. So it comes into Gare Centrale across the Victoria bridge. But the point of HFR is to avoid the current routes with their busy freight traffic.
Exactly. The only service that runs north of the river (though on different track than planned for HFR) are the Northern Quebec trains (which run 3 days a week), and they run around Mount Royal. Here a map of the existing services (plus a rough guess for HFR to Quebec City). There is a small chance HFR could run north of Mount Royal, but that isn't without its own issues.


Last edited by roger1818; Sep 27, 2020 at 11:07 PM. Reason: Updated picture
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 11:40 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Thanks for that map. But why be concerned about the Quebec route? Leave that problem for another day, no need to over complicate HFR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 11:53 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Yes that's my view as well. I think some people were worried about REM needlessly closing off future possibilities but our biggest worry at this point is present possibilities since it can be so damn hard to get anything done around here.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2020, 12:33 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
Yes that's my view as well. I think some people were worried about REM needlessly closing off future possibilities but our biggest worry at this point is present possibilities since it can be so damn hard to get anything done around here.
Yes, the way it was discussed I was worried this tunnel issue was a major problem. But now I understand and it does not seem to be a huge issue and does not substantially affect the core route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.